The Lisbon vote

I am arguing that big business cross national mulit national companies by an large unless carefully regulated will exploit people. This is not conspiracy theory this is fact.
 
television said:
I dont think I have actually argued that? And if you want to create false arguments on my behalf and then break them down good luck to you. But it really means nothing
Click to expand...

You have used the term "business" on multiple posts to denote anybody or anything representing what you call a "neo-liberal" or "extreme right-wing" outlook. By extension you imply that any government that is business-friendly or pro-business, is dedicated to pursuing a neo-conservative agenda.

I am not creating a strawman argument here, this is what you have written. In fact your next two posts state:


I might never convince you that Apple, Microsoft and The Coca-Cola Company have not formed some shadowy new world order cabal with the French and German governments, dedicated to turning our youth into some European version of the American Conservative Youth Union through the medium of privatised education.

However, can you point to something specifically in the Lisbon Treaty that facilitates this, or is your opinion based on a general anti-EU stance?
 

I actually used the tem in that post BIG BUSINESS if you cARE TO LOOK AGAIN. I am nOT saying that the local shop keeper or the guy that cuts your hair is a neo liberal.

And just because you say
I am not creating a strawman argument here,
Click to expand...
does not give you the right to do just that.

I have not said that all business is right wing or neoliberal. I have said that there is a very pro business agenda in Europe and that Lisbon treaty allows for the opening up of public services to competition and prvitisation. i do not think this is a good thing for the reasons I have outlined above.

might never convince you that Apple, Microsoft and The Coca-Cola Company have not formed some shadowy new world
Click to expand...

I will point you to the European Round table of industrialists re this point. Im not a conspiricy theorist but this is a real organisation and it has a very right wing and neo liberal agenda and this is harmful for health aND EDUCATION in my opinion.



Finally I am happy to debate this point with you but please stop misrepresenting what I am actually saying
 
However, can you point to something specifically in the Lisbon Treaty that facilitates this, or is your opinion based on a general anti-EU stance?
Click to expand...

I have already refered to specific articles of the treaty that i believe would lead to the conditions by which privitisation would be facilitated.
 
television said:
I have already refered to specific articles of the treaty that i believe would lead to the conditions by which privitisation would be facilitated.
Click to expand...

You've quoted No campaign propaganda that misrepresents articles of the treaty.

Give us a direct link to an official source that backs up your privatisation claims.
 


It may be argued by global health provision companies that goverment support of education and health is a form of restrictive practice to global trade.​
 



Then it goes on to say​

For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously.
Click to expand...




So you see tecnically Ireland has a VETO in regards the opening up of our public services (schools+Hospitals) to privitisation, but that veto is in the context of this important phrase "where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them" Now if Mary Harney does not think these aggreements risk seriosuly disturbing the national organisation of such services" which I guarentee she does not, then this can allow her to introduce privitisation.​

This is my opinion based on my reading of relivent section of the treaty. I am not parroting anyone but making an analysis based on my reading and on the kind of big business forces that are very influencial around the corridors of power in Europe who ensure such wording to stregthen the possition.



​
 
To be honest, I am baffled by your analysis. I can't make any sense of what you are saying.

The phrase "where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them" is in my opinion a strong defence of national governments' rights to maintain the status quo in the areas of social, education and health services.

In my view, it means that these areas are immune from being opened up to free trade.

And, although I am not an expert on EU law, I cannot imagine the EU allowing Mary Harney or any other domestic Minister the right to make binding policy decisions on matters like this.
 
Okay then, I will spell it out in English:

I find this comment...
It may be argued by global health provision companies that goverment support of education and health is a form of restrictive practice to global trade.
Click to expand...
...laughable and confusing - for the reasons set out in my most recent post.
 
No, Not if the government is idelogically bend on introducing privitisation (as is the case with Mary Harney) . If this is the case then this section of the treaty actually gives them room within the euroepan project to do that.
 
And, although I am not an expert on EU law, I cannot imagine the EU allowing Mary Harney or any other domestic Minister the right to make binding policy decisions on matters like this.
Click to expand...

No not european wide but it gives a back door for privitisation to be brought in country by country. As long as privitiation does not

seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them
Click to expand...
 
television said:
No, Not if the government is idelogically bend on introducing privitisation (as is the case with Mary Harney) . If this is the case then this section of the treaty actually gives them room within the euroepan project to do that.
Click to expand...

But I thought that the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty (and, one might argue, of the EU as a whole) is to reduce national governments' powers in certain areas in favour of concentrating power centrally within the EU itself. Otherwise, please explain why the EU elite are so insistent that the Treaty is passed, if it means that they lose power once it takes effect?
 
I accept that you may be confused. Thats fine this is a complexed issue. But perhaps you could suggest a more constructive phrase than laughable. I am trying to give an analysis on points of the treaty. You are free to disagree with this analysis and offer a counter analysis. But words like laughable without a coherent argument mean nothing.
 
television said:
No not european wide but it gives a back door for privitisation to be brought in country by country.
Click to expand...

Again, this does not make sense. The Treaty, and the EU in general, are designed to reduce and/or eliminate administrative differences between member states, not increase them.
 
ubiquitous said:
But I thought that the whole point of the Lisbon Treaty (and, one might argue, of the EU as a whole) is to reduce national governments' powers in certain areas in favour of concentrating power centrally within the EU itself.
Click to expand...

I dont think advocates of the yes vote would aggree with your analysis of what Lisbon is about.

ubiquitous said:
Otherwise, please explain why the EU elite are so insistent that the Treaty is passed, if it means that they lose power once it takes effect?
Click to expand...

Could you clarify this?
 

Yes, that is one of the reasons why I am voting No. Which is why I find your line of argument bizarre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register